Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
2015+ Shelby GT350 Mustang
538 rwhp naturally aspirated
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ANGREY" data-source="post: 16131321" data-attributes="member: 188865"><p>I just find publishing dyno numbers without the detail sheet (or a confirmation they're SAE corrected) dubious. There's plenty of unscrupulous shops out there that love to produce inflated STD numbers because they generate a lot of attention and buzz, but aren't a very good comparison to others. Granted, all dyno comparisons come with a grain of salt, but SAE corrected is a MUCH better comparison than all the tricks and manipulations of STD numbers. Without revealing DA, dyno numbers can swing wildly. Someone who dyno's in the Summer in Denver with the same car is going to get a very different result than someone who dyno's at Sea level and 20F. That's where SAE comes into play to try to level/compare them.</p><p></p><p>The only thing different he has from other cars in the 500 rwhp range (on 93) is P/P heads. I find it hard to believe that P/P would make THAT big of an improvement and he's putting down numbers on 93 that no one has touched even with E-85. All the other stuff (locking out the IMRC and cam phasers) does nothing for peak output and just makes the tuning easier. He's also running the heavy/stock wheels, which can be up to a 5% parasite on numbers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ANGREY, post: 16131321, member: 188865"] I just find publishing dyno numbers without the detail sheet (or a confirmation they're SAE corrected) dubious. There's plenty of unscrupulous shops out there that love to produce inflated STD numbers because they generate a lot of attention and buzz, but aren't a very good comparison to others. Granted, all dyno comparisons come with a grain of salt, but SAE corrected is a MUCH better comparison than all the tricks and manipulations of STD numbers. Without revealing DA, dyno numbers can swing wildly. Someone who dyno's in the Summer in Denver with the same car is going to get a very different result than someone who dyno's at Sea level and 20F. That's where SAE comes into play to try to level/compare them. The only thing different he has from other cars in the 500 rwhp range (on 93) is P/P heads. I find it hard to believe that P/P would make THAT big of an improvement and he's putting down numbers on 93 that no one has touched even with E-85. All the other stuff (locking out the IMRC and cam phasers) does nothing for peak output and just makes the tuning easier. He's also running the heavy/stock wheels, which can be up to a 5% parasite on numbers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
2015+ Shelby GT350 Mustang
538 rwhp naturally aspirated
Top